Latest Cases

European Union – Employment. The Court of Justice of the European Union gave a preliminary ruling, deciding that the provisions of Council Directive (EC) 96/34 and Directive (EC) 2006/54 had to be interpreted as precluding national provisions under which a civil servant was not entitled to parental leave in a situation where his wife did not work or exercise any profession, unless it was considered that due to a serious illness or injury the wife was unable to meet the needs related to the upbringing of the child. 

Employment tribunal – Procedure. An issue arose as to whether there was any material difference between the jurisprudence in respect of the European Convention on Human Rights and EU law as regards the degree of disclosure that was required to secure a fair hearing for an excluded person in a case where national security issues were at stake. The Court of Appeal, Civil Division, held that nothing suggested that the Court of Justice of the European Union's conclusion in ZZ v Secretary of State for the Home Department; C-300/11[2014] All ER (EC) 56 as to the extent of the disclosure obligation in that case applied to all cases within the scope of EU law. Nor was there anything in that judgment to suggest that the CJEU had been purporting to lay down some new general principle of law. 

Minor – Removal outside jurisdiction. The Family Division made an order for the summary return of the applicant mother's children to Australia, where she lived, where they had been wrongly kept in England by the father. The court found that there had been no acquiescence on the mother's part, and none of the children had truly objected to returning to Australia. 

Defamation – Whether words complained of capable of bearing defamatory meaning ascribed to them. Court of Session: Allowing a reclaiming motion and a proof before answer an action in which the pursuer averred that the defenders had published an article which was defamatory of him in their newspaper, the court held that the article, read reasonably and as a whole, was capable of bearing the defamatory innuendo the pursuer attributed to it, and the Lord Ordinary had erred in concluding otherwise and dismissing the action. 

Town and country planning – Certificate of proposed lawful use. Court of Session: Refusing an appeal against the decision of a reporter appointed by the Scottish Minsters, who refused an appeal by the owner of a retail park against a local authority refusal of its an application for a certificate of proposed lawful use permitting the retail sale of any non-food goods, the court held that the reporter had not erred in his construction of condition 3 of the detailed planning permission granted in 1993, or in his conclusion that condition 3 excluded the operation of the Town and Country Planning (Use Classes) (Scotland) Order 1997. 

Town and country planning – Permission for development. The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal by the appellant against the decision by the Court of Appeal, Civil Division, that the judge hearing the appellant's judicial review claim had wrongly decided that the relevant committee of the respondent local authority had been correct in its conclusion that there had been no relevant risk requiring appropriate assessment (AA) or an environmental impact assessment (EIA) in relation to a proposed development by an interested party which could have led to the pollution of a nearby river which was a special area of conservation. 

Family proceedings – Care proceedings. The Court of Appeal, Civil Division, dismissed the mother's appeal against the judge's finding that she was responsible for attempting to drown her child. It held that the judge's ultimate conclusion was unassailable. In the light of all the evidence and, in particular, in the light of what he had heard when listening to the recording of the mother's 999 call, he had been entitled to conclude as he had and for the reasons he had given. 

Local authority – Decision of local authority. The Supreme Court, in allowing an appeal by the appellant in part, held that although the Court of Appeal, Civil Division, had held that the respondent local authority had failed in its statutory obligations, it did not have to make a declaration to that effect. However, the Court of Appeal's costs order would be set aside, and H would recover two thirds of his costs in the proceedings. 

Practice – Arbitration. The Commercial Court struck out the defendant's application, under ss 67 and 68 of the Arbitration Act 1996, to challenge to an arbitration award in favour of the claimant where it had been issued out of time and there were no sufficient grounds to extend time. 

Firearms – Possession. The defendant had pleaded guilty to possession of a prohibited weapon, contrary to s 5(1)(af) of the Firearms Act 1968, in circumstances where he contended that he had legitimately acquired the weapon prior to the coming into force of that provision. The Court of Appeal, Criminal Division, in quashing the conviction, held that, on the true construction of s 39(4) of the Anti-social Behaviour Act 2003, which introduced s 5(1)(af) into the 1968 Act, all that had been required was the obtaining of a firearm certificate and that failure to obtain such a certificate was an offence under s 1 of the 1968 Act and not s 5.